The Reagan Plan

(September 1,
1982)

Unknown to Israel,
the Reagan administration was preparing a new diplomatic initiative
for the Middle East, designed to renew the peace process, deal with
the Palestinian issue,
improve Israel-Egypt relations
and provide impetus for Jordan
to join the peace process. It was also aimed at pleasing those Arab
states who had accepted P. L. 0.
evacuees from Beirut and
signaling them that the U.S. was not satisfied solely with their
departure from Beirut, but was seeking an overall solution. Israel
alone was not involved in the new American thinking, and learned of
the plan when Ambassador Lewis showed it to Prime Minister Begin
who was vacationing in Nahariya. Begin's reaction was: "It is
the saddest day of my life" He was determined to reject the plan
as not being even a basis for negotiations. Text of the Reagan
address follows:

Today has been a day that
should make all of us proud. It marked the end of the successful
evacuation of the P.L.O. from Beirut, Lebanon. This peaceful step
could never have been taken without the good offices of the United
States and, especially, the truly heroic work of a great American
diplomat, Philip Habib. Thanks to his efforts I am happy to announce
that the U.S. Marine contingent helping to supervise the evacuation
has accomplished its mission.

Our young men should be out
of Lebanon within two weeks. They, too, have served the cause of
peace with distinction and we can all be very proud of them.

But the situation in Lebanon
is only part of the overall problem of the conflict in the Middle
East. So, over the past two weeks, while events in Beirut dominated
the front page, America was engaged in a quiet, behind-the-scenes
effort to lay the groundwork for a broader peace in the region.

For once, there were no
premature leaks as U.S. diplomatic missions traveled to Mid-East
capitals and I met here at home with a wide range of experts to map
out an American peace initiative for the long-suffering peoples of
the Middle East, Arab and Israeli alike.

It seemed to me that, with
the agreement in Lebanon, we had an opportunity for a more
far-reaching peace effort in the region - and I was determined to
seize that moment. In the words of the scripture, the time had come
to "follow after the things which make for peace."

Tonight, I want to report to
you on the steps we have taken, and the prospects they can open up
for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East.

America has long been
committed to bringing peace to this troubled region. For more than a
generation, successive U.S. administrations have endeavoured to
develop a fair and workable process that could lead to a true and
lasting Arab-Israeli peace. Our involvement in the search for
Mid-East peace is not a matter of preference; it is a moral
imperative. The- strategic importance of the region to the U.S. is
well known.

But our policy is motivated
by more than strategic interests. We also have an irreversible
commitment to the survival and territorial integrity of friendly
states. Nor can we ignore the fact that the wellbeing of much of the
world's economy is tied to stability in the strife-torn Middle East.
Finally, our traditional humanitarian concerns dictate a continuing
effort to peacefully resolve conflicts.

When our administration
assumed office in January 1981, 1 decided that the general framework
for our Middle East policy should follow the broad guidelines laid
down by my predecessors.

There were two basic issues
we had to address: First, there was the strategic threat Lebanese to
rebuild their war-torn country. We owe it to ourselves and to
posterity, to move quickly, to build upon this achievement. A stable
and revived Lebanon is essential to all our hopes for peace in the
region. The people of Lebanon deserve the best efforts of the
international community to turn the nightmares of the past several
years into a new dawn of hope.

But the opportunities for
peace in the Middle East do not begin and end in Lebanon. As we help
Lebanon rebuild, we must also move to resolve the root causes of
conflict between the Arabs and Israelis.

This war in Lebanon has
demonstrated many things, but two consequences are key to the peace
process:

First, the military losses
of the P.L.O. have not diminished the yearning of the Palestinian
people for a just solution of their claims; and second, while
Israel's military success in Lebanon have demonstrated that its armed
forces are second to none in the region, they alone cannot bring just
and lasting peace to Israel and her neighbours.

The question now is how to
reconcile Israel's legitimate security concerns with the legitimate
rights of the Palestinians. And that answer can only come at the
negotiating table. Each party must recognize that the outcome must be
acceptable to all and that true peace will require compromises by
all.

So, tonight, I am calling
for a fresh start. This is the moment for all those directly
concerned to get involved in - or lend their support to - a workable
basis for peace. The Camp David agreement remains the foundation of
our policy. Its language provides all parties with the leeway they
need for successful negotiations.

I call on Israel to make
clear that the security for which she yearns can only be achieved
through genuine peace, a peace requiring magnanimity, vision and
courage.

I call on the Palestinian
people to recognize that their own political aspirations are
inextricably bound to recognition of Israel's right to a secure
future.

And I call on the Arab
states to accept the reality of Israel -- and the reality that peace
and justice are to be gained only through hard, fair, direct
negotiations.

In making these calls upon
others, I recognize that the United States has a special
responsibility. No other nation is in a position to deal with the key
parties to the conflict on the basis of trust and reliability.

The time has come for a new realism
on the part of all the peoples of the Middle East. The State of Israel
is an accomplished fact; it deserves unchallenged legitimacy within
the community of nations. But Israel's legitimacy has thus far been
recognized by too few countries, and has been denied by every Arab state
except Egypt. Israel exists; it has a right to exist in peace behind
secure and defensible borders, and it has a right to demand of its neighbours
that they recognize those facts.

I have personally followed and supported Israel's heroic
struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel
34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide
at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel's population lived within
artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel
to live that way again.

The war in Lebanon has
demonstrated another reality in the region. The departure of the
Palestinians from Beirut dramatizes more than ever the homelessness
of the Palestinian people. Palestinians feel strongly that their
cause is more than a question of refugees. I agree.

The Camp David agreement
recognized that fact when it spoke of "the legitimate rights of
the Palestinian people and their just requirements." For peace
to endure, it must involve all those who have been most deeply
affected by the conflict. Only through broader participation in the
peace process - most immediately by Jordan and by the Palestinians -
will Israel be able to rest confident in the knowledge that its
security and integrity will be respected by its neighbours. Only
through the process of negotiation can all the nations of the Middle
East achieve a secure peace.

These, then, are our general
goals. What are the specific new American positions and why are we
taking them?

In the Camp David talks thus
far, both Israel and Egypt have felt free to express openly their
views as to what the outcome should be. Understandably, their views
have differed on many points.

The United States has thus
far sought to play the role of mediator; we have avoided public
comment on the key issues. We have always recognized - and continue
to recognize - that only the voluntary agreement of those parties
most directly involved in the conflict can provide an enduring
solution. But it has become evident to me that some clearer sense of
America's position on the key issues is necessary to encourage wider
support for the peace process.

First, as outlined in the
Camp David accords, there must be a period of time during which the
Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza will have full
autonomy over their ' r own affairs. Due consideration must be given
to the principle of self-government by the inhabitants of the
territories and to the legitimate security concerns of the parties
involved.

The purpose of the five-year
period of transition which would begin after free elections for a
self-governing Palestinian authority is to prove to the Palestinians
that they can run their own affairs, and that such Palestinian
autonomy poses no threat to Israel's security.

The United States will not
support the use of any additional land for the purpose of settlements
during the transition period. Indeed, the immediate adoption of a
settlement freeze by Israel, more than any other action, could create
the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks. Further
settlement activity is in no way necessary for the security of Israel
and only diminishes the confidence of the Arabs and a final outcome
can be freely and fairly negotiated.

I want to make the American
position clearly understood: the purpose of this transition period is
the peaceful and orderly transfer of domestic authority from Israel
to the Palestinian inhabitants of the West Bank and Gaza. At the same
time, such a transfer must not interfere with Israel's security
requirements.

Beyond the transition
period, as we look to the future of the West Bank and Gaza, it is
clear to me that peace cannot be achieved by the formation of an
independent Palestinian state in those territories. Nor is it
achievable on the basis of Israeli sovereignty or permanent control
over the West Bank and Gaza.

So the United States will
not support the establishment of an independent Palestinian state in
the West Bank and Gaza, and we will not support annexation or
permanent control by Israel.

There is, however, another
way to peace. The final status of these lands must, of course, be
reached through the give-and-take of negotiations; but it is the firm
view of the United States that self-government by the Palestinians of
the West Bank and Gaza in association with Jordan offers the best
chance for a durable, just and lasting peace.

We base our approach
squarely on the principle that the Arab-Israeli conflict should be
resolved through the negotiations involving an exchange of territory
for peace. This exchange is enshrined in United Nations Security
Council Resolution 242, which is, in turn, incorporated in all its
parts in the Camp David agreements. U.N. Resolution 242 remains
wholly valid as the foundation-stone of America's Middle East peace
effort.

It is the United States'
position that - in return for peace - the withdrawal provision of
Resolution 242 applies to all fronts, including the West Bank and
Gaza.

When the border is
negotiated between Jordan and Israel, our view on the extent to which
Israel should be asked to give up territory will be heavily affected
by the extent of true peace and normalization and the security
arrangements offered in return.

Finally, we remain convinced
that Jerusalem must remain undivided, but its final status should be
decided through negotiations.

In the course of the
negotiations to come, the United States will support positions that
seem to us fair and reasonable compromises and likely to promote a
sound agreement. We will also put forward our own detailed proposals
when we believe they can be helpful. And, make no mistake, the United
States will oppose any proposal -from any party and at any point in
the negotiating process - that threatens the security of Israel.
America's commitment to the security of Israel is ironclad. And I
might add, so is mine.

During the past few days,
our ambassadors in Israel, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have
presented to their host countries the proposal in full detail that I
have outlined here tonight.

I am convinced that these
proposals can bring justice, bring security and bring durability to
an Arab-Israeli peace.

The United States will stand
by these principles with total dedication. They are fully consistent
with Israel's security requirements and the aspirations of the
Palestinians. We will work hard to broaden participation at the peace
table as envisaged by the Camp David Accords. And I fervently hope
that the Palestinians and Jordan, with the support of their Arab
colleagues, will accept this opportunity.

Tragic turmoil in the Middle
East runs back to the dawn of history. In our modern day, conflict
after conflict has taken its brutal toll there. In an age of nuclear
challenge and economic interdependence, such conflicts are a threat
to all the people of the world, not just the Middle East itself. It
is time for us all - in the Middle East and around the world -to call
a halt to conflict, hatred and prejudice; it is time for us all to
launch a common effort for reconstruction, peace and progress,

It has often been said - and
regrettably too often been true - that the story of the search for
peace and justice in the Middle East is a tragedy of opportunities
missed.

In the aftermath of the
settlement in Lebanon we now face an opportunity for a broader peace.
This time we must not let it slip from our grasp. We must look beyond
the difficulties and obstacles of the present and move with fairness
and resolve toward a brighter future. We owe it to ourselves - and to
posterity - to do no less. For if we miss this chance to make a fresh
start, we may look back on this moment from some later vantage point
and realize how much that failure cost us all.

These, then, are the
principles upon which American policy toward the Arab-Israeli
conflict will be based. I have made a personal commitment to see that
they endure and, God willing, that they will come to be seen by all
reasonable, compassionate people as fair, achievable and in the
interests of all who wish to see peace in the Middle East.

Tonight, on the eve of what
can be the dawning of new hope for the people of the troubled Middle
East - and for all the world's people who dream of a just and
peaceful future - I ask you, my fellow Americans, for your support
and your prayers in this great undertaking.